| Quarterly phone interviews (qualitative; measurement A) |
Aimed at capturing usability challenges, system strengths and weaknesses, and potential enhancements, ensuring that patient experiences could be used to inform platform refinements |
During these interviews, patients were asked to (1) report their experiences with the system in general, (2) report whether they experienced (technical) difficulties while using the platform, and (3) identify both strengths and weaknesses of the system.
|
| Quarterly questionnaire (qualitative; measurement B) |
Aimed at capturing usability challenges, system strengths and weaknesses, and potential enhancements, ensuring that patient experiences could be used to inform platform refinements |
|
| End-of-study questionnaire (quantitative; measurement C) |
To assess key TAMa [24] components, including perceived usefulness (ie, the extent to which the system was seen as beneficial for health behavior change), ease of use (ie, the perceived effort required to interact with different platform components, such as the chatbot, dashboard, and health watch), and satisfaction with platform use |
Perceived usefulness—one statement: “The feedback I receive from the patient platform helps me improve my health behavior.” Responses were collected using a 5-point Likert scale (1=“strongly disagree,” 2=“disagree,” 3=“neutral,” 4=“agree,” and 5=“strongly agree”). SEQb—three SEQs [25] were used in this study: (1) answering chatbot questions, (2) collecting movement data using the health watch, and (3) viewing lifestyle data in the lifestyle dashboard. Responses were collected using a 7-point scale (where 1 indicated “very difficult” and 7 indicated “very easy”), with an additional option for nonuse. CSATc [26]—two questions based on the CSAT: (1) “How satisfied are you with this platform for the monitoring of lifestyle behavior?” and (2) “How satisfied are you with the ease of use and appeal of the platform?” Responses were collected with a scoring of 1 for “extremely dissatisfied,” 2 for “somewhat dissatisfied,” 3 for “neither satisfied nor dissatisfied,” 4 for “somewhat satisfied,” and 5 for “extremely satisfied.”
|
| Dropout reasons (quantitative and qualitative; measurement D) |
To gain deeper insights into the factors influencing disengagement |
|
| Evaluation interview (qualitative; measurement E) |
A structured evaluation interview explored patients’ experiences with posttreatment recovery, lifestyle changes, and self-monitoring behaviors (eg, facilitators of and barriers to long-term use), as well as their engagement with the system, including its usability (also per module) and perceived burden. This approach enabled a comprehensive assessment of the system’s feasibility, acceptability, and potential impact on long-term behavior change. |
Post–cardiac intervention experiences: to contextualize engagement with lifestyle monitoring, we examined how patients’ recovery experiences influenced their use of the system. Effect of lifestyle self-monitoring on lifestyle awareness and behavior change: patients were asked to report on whether self-monitoring using the system had an effect on their lifestyle awareness and whether it helped them reflect on and eventually adjust their lifestyle behaviors in accordance with the self-regulation theory [13]. System usability and engagement: we investigated the overall usability of the system and how patients engaged with it. We evaluated key platform components, including chatbot interactions, wearable usability, feedback mechanisms, and goal-setting and sharing features. In addition, perceived effort and time investment regarding the proposed monitoring protocol were assessed using the NASA-TLXd [27] scale.
|
